All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God. But in the case of Christianity, the Gospels followed Jesus' ministry be decades. In the case of all three monotheisms, their grand miracles were never reported by major outside sources; those who accept the truth of those miracles are basically relying only on the word of an ancient book, with no cross-sectional verification. As Voltaire says:

"If a man who controlled all of nature had existed among the Egyptians, wouldn't such remarkable events have been included in the main part of history of Egypt? The historian Josephus collected all possible testimony in favor of the Jews.He does not dare maintain that any of the authors he cites said a single word about the miracles of Moses. What! The Nile turned to blood, an angel slaughtered all the first born in Egypt, the sea parted... and no author spoke of it!

The great nations forgot these marvels, and a small people of barbarous slaves are the only ones to tell us this story thousands of years after the fact?"

To those who say that the Egyptians were simply embarrassed and never recorded their defeats: First of all, there is no mention as far as I'm aware of any group of Jews living in Egypt during the time they claim they did - only hundreds of years later. And surely the exodus of a huge part of their work force/economy would have been recorded and documented in some manner. The Egyptians kept meticulous records of everything in their society, right down to minor financial transactions between citizens. Surely someone would have written something about the devastating effect that the exodus would have had on their economy, or all of the first born randomly dying at the same time!

Furthermore, the Bible claims that people in Canaan heard of the miracles performed by God and Moses and were terrified by them. Jethro the Midianite priest converted to Judaism after hearing of them. So there were other nations that heard of these astounding, grandiose miracles - yet there is no documentation of them aside from the Bible itself!

The same general shortage of cross-sectional verification/non-biblical sources applies to all claims of theistic miracles as far as I am aware.

And even if we had multiple primary sources attesting to these miracles, which we don't, it still wouldn't be enough to prove that any holy book is divine. Why not? Because firsthand reports of miracles are and have always been quite common, even in the 21st century, the age of technology and science. Sathya Sai Baba was a famous Indian guru who had millions of supporters attesting to his divinity and miracles (even virgin birth!) and he died just last year. His miracles have been confirmed by an uncountable amount of eyewitnesses. Yet the vast majority of theists wouldn't even consider the truth of his miracles for a second and would think that anyone who believes in them is probably crazy or not requiring solid evidence.

If you see something apparently suspending the laws of nature, you have to ask yourself a question. Which is more probable - that the laws of physics/nature have been temporarily suspended, and in your favor, or that you are under a misapprehension?

That's if you saw the event yourself! Now what if you heard it from a friend who saw it? You should doubtlessly be even more skeptical that a miracle has truly occurred. And what if you heard it from a friend who heard it from an older person who saw it long ago? Surely you should be greatly skeptical that the claimed miracle indeed occurred/was a miracle given the second-hand nature of the source and the abundance of such claims at all points in human history.

Here's the kicker - what if you're hearing the claim of a miracle from an ancient text that is thousands of years old, has been edited and contributed to by numerous authors, over a really long time... And many of these authors and contributors (in Christianity's case) openly admitted that they were non-eye witnesses to these miracles? Given that miracles are attested to by countless eye-witnesses even in our modern era of science and technology, and that thousands of years ago most people thought most things we know as part of nature were simply miraculous, and were terribly ignorant of science, I would say that anyone who can claim these miracles are historical facts is advertising a willingness to believe absolutely anything.

Scientists have found that around the time the nile river supposedly turned to blood, there was a volcanic explosion. The volcanic eruption created a huge cloud over Egypt, hence the darkness. The volcano contaminated the river turning it red, thus the river turning to blood. This drove the frogs onto the land, which attracted flies and plague. The disease created boils. Finally, a force generated by the volcano forced the red sea apart, hence the red sea parting.

Wall of LOL
"Infanticide is justified as long as the infants are below two" ~ RoyalPaladin
"Promoting female superiority is the only way to establish equality." ~ RoyalPaladin
"Jury trials should be banned. They're nothing more than opportunities for racists to destroy lives." ~ RoyalPaladin after the Zimmerman Trial.

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

This is very interesting. So how does this change the way you view/practice religion? What are the practical ramifications of not holding to a "dictation theory of inspiration." My point was that all religions are founded on the divine inspiration of their supposed holy books; that's where they claim to get their authority from. Is this not true of Christianity?

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

So you don't think the bible is from God or inspired by him?

The Bible is different. It's (1) A collection of books, and (2) Words of men, inspired by God. Not all of it for sure. This doesn't matter for the Quran, since it is free from inconsistencies anyway.

You assert the Bible is inconsistent. How is this tenable in light that the majority consensus of Christian Scholars hold the Bible is NOT inconsistent. This is compounded that the majority of Theological Scholars hold the Quran is highly error prone.

I smell a wiff of bias as strong as an African passing a pile of elephant dung.

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

So you don't think the bible is from God or inspired by him?

The Bible is different. It's (1) A collection of books, and (2) Words of men, inspired by God. Not all of it for sure. This doesn't matter for the Quran, since it is free from inconsistencies anyway.

You assert the Bible is inconsistent. How is this tenable in light that the majority consensus of Christian Scholars hold the Bible is NOT inconsistent. This is compounded that the majority of Theological Scholars hold the Quran is highly error prone.

I smell a wiff of bias as strong as an African passing a pile of elephant dung.

Sigged.

'When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.' - John 16:13

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

This is very interesting. So how does this change the way you view/practice religion? What are the practical ramifications of not holding to a "dictation theory of inspiration." My point was that all religions are founded on the divine inspiration of their supposed holy books; that's where they claim to get their authority from. Is this not true of Christianity?

Why dont you back up all your talk about Christianity or any faith for that matter. Ill debate you 1 on 1 on the subject. If you prepare it right.

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

This is very interesting. So how does this change the way you view/practice religion? What are the practical ramifications of not holding to a "dictation theory of inspiration." My point was that all religions are founded on the divine inspiration of their supposed holy books; that's where they claim to get their authority from. Is this not true of Christianity?

Why dont you back up all your talk about Christianity or any faith for that matter. Ill debate you 1 on 1 on the subject. If you prepare it right.

I think I back up my talk about Christianity pretty well with logic and/or facts. You on the other hand seem to be fond of appealing to faith, and using it as an excuse to not need to provide evidence for things. You are the one who should start backing up all his talk about Christianity, my friend. And in case you didn't realize, which I'm honestly not sure you did - in the post you responded to I was asking questions about PCP's religious beliefs. I was inquiring, not stating, so idk what you would like me to back up here...

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

This is very interesting. So how does this change the way you view/practice religion? What are the practical ramifications of not holding to a "dictation theory of inspiration." My point was that all religions are founded on the divine inspiration of their supposed holy books; that's where they claim to get their authority from. Is this not true of Christianity?

Why dont you back up all your talk about Christianity or any faith for that matter. Ill debate you 1 on 1 on the subject. If you prepare it right.

I think I back up my talk about Christianity pretty well with logic and/or facts. You on the other hand seem to be fond of appealing to faith, and using it as an excuse to not need to provide evidence for things. You are the one who should start backing up all his talk about Christianity, my friend. And in case you didn't realize, which I'm honestly not sure you did - in the post you responded to I was asking questions about PCP's religious beliefs. I was inquiring, not stating, so idk what you would like me to back up here...

I will accept a correct challenge. You talking truth and facts right? prove it!

At 5/28/2012 6:06:03 PM, jat93 wrote:All of theism is predicated on the idea that its holy books are true and written by God.

Nope. Christianity doesn't hold to a dictation theory of inspiration. I think most Muslims do, though.

This is very interesting. So how does this change the way you view/practice religion? What are the practical ramifications of not holding to a "dictation theory of inspiration." My point was that all religions are founded on the divine inspiration of their supposed holy books; that's where they claim to get their authority from. Is this not true of Christianity?

Why dont you back up all your talk about Christianity or any faith for that matter. Ill debate you 1 on 1 on the subject. If you prepare it right.

I think I back up my talk about Christianity pretty well with logic and/or facts. You on the other hand seem to be fond of appealing to faith, and using it as an excuse to not need to provide evidence for things. You are the one who should start backing up all his talk about Christianity, my friend. And in case you didn't realize, which I'm honestly not sure you did - in the post you responded to I was asking questions about PCP's religious beliefs. I was inquiring, not stating, so idk what you would like me to back up here...

I will accept a correct challenge. You talking truth and facts right? prove it!

Sorry, and not to sound like a pompous @$$, but I literally don't understand what you are saying/talking about. Are you asking me to challenge you to a debate? If so, about what...? Specify please.